Jim covered Congress and The White House during the George W. Bush administration for The Washington Times, and worked as a reporter, editorial writer and columnist for newspapers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and California. He has appeared on the Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-Span, and many local and national talk radio shows to talk politics and policy.
Latest posts by Jim Lakely (see all)
- PODCAST: Charlie Kirk and Brent Hamachek on Time for a Turning Point - February 14, 2017
- Yes, New York Times Commenter Maggie Mae, ‘The Heartland’ Matters - January 9, 2017
- The Year in Climate Realism: A Review of 2016 - January 6, 2017
Heartland fellow Ross Kaminsky has a can’t-miss-it rebuttal at the American Spectator to former SEIU head Andy Stern — the most popular guest at the White House, by far. The Wall Street Journal did the public service of giving space to Stern’s praise of China’s “system” of life on December 1— and not just the economic side, but the oppressive political side. It’s a clear window into the left’s ideal society.
As Ross notes:
The professional left in America and their chattering-class useful idiots have followed a consistent pattern for a century: sympathizing with tyranny in their musings over how to implement policies fueled by jealousy and an undying fear of economic liberty.
What Ross outlines in his post is the long history of “smart guys” — from politicians, to union heads, to even (misguided) titans of industry — thinking they have all the answers. If only free markets could be “modified” by government so they to bend to my will … everyone would benefit.
Of course, that’s not how free markets work. So “smart guys” want markets that are not remotely free. They want markets that are rigged to their vision, and not that of consumers and competitors. Shorter version of these “smart guys” desires: I love crony capitalism. Slightly longer version: I want government to manipulate the market to benefit me.
What’s most amazing to me: The “smart guys” actually wonder why everyone else competing and participating in the market don’t agree — and send an essay to the Wall Street Journal to say so.
As Ross writes:
So when you hear people — especially non-economists with political agendas — long for the statism that characterizes most of America’s economic competitors, listen with great skepticism.
Ross goes on to demolish the idea that central planning, like that in “booming” China, is what America needs, by laying out the current burden on America for “scaling up” production:
Could it instead be the massive regulatory burden imposed on manufacturing companies and the uncertainties created by our government, such as whether Barack Obama will get his wish and cause “electricity rates [to] necessarily skyrocket“? And if all that weren’t bad enough, who would risk any business growth that might subject management to dealing with unions and the true tyrants at Obama’s National Labor Relations Board? Really, if you were going to start a business that would be likely to hire a thousand or ten thousand workers, wouldn’t you go out of your way to avoid people exactly like Andy Stern?
More from Ross on the s0-called Chinese, central-planning miracle, in which they can/have raised its people out of poverty and kick the butt of free-market economies:
What Stern neglects to mention is that the policies that have already moved out of poverty more Chinese than the entire population of the U.S. were changes directly away from the central planning that so failed under Chairman Mao yet which unions still champion — because they know they will be able to manipulate politicians to help unions rather than workers or customers.
Let me also mention, as a non-economist, the benefits of China’s slave labor. That can do a lot for a country’s bottom line.
But enough of me. Read the whole thing from Ross. You don’t want to miss any of its greatness.